Legal Opinion
Muller v. Kelly
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
Decided June 13, 1902No. 21PublishedCited by 5 opinions
At Law. On motion for new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.
It is not important to decide the question whether the validity of the contract in question for a contingent fee should be determined by the Pennsylvania decisions or by the decisions of the federal courts. Admittedly, the supreme court of Pennsylvania has sustained such contracts (Chester Co. v. Barber, 97 Pa. 455; Perry v. Dicken, 105 Pa. 83, 51 Am. Rep. 181); but for the purposes of this motion I shall assume that the contract is to be tested by the decisions of the supreme court of the United States. Thus tried, also, it seems to me to be sustained by Wylie…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- STANTON v. Embrey, AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Wylie v. CoxeSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- McPherson v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Taylor v. BemissSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Peck v. HeurichSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- International Text-Book Co. v. AndersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Davis v. A. H. Reid Creamery & Dairy Supply Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1911
- Schmidt v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
- Guerra v. RoccoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1913
- Davenport v. HolbertNew York Supreme Court · 1928